I saw this thoughtful post on an e-mail list I'm a member of:


I wonder about a few local female parishioners who act as if they either never hear the Sunday sermons, or don’t care about them, or don’t think they apply to them.  Jacinta had a vision of Our Lady in which our Lady warned that “fashions are about to be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much”.  The biggest change in fashion to follow that vision was that, for apparently the first time in the history of Christendom, women’s hemlines rose above mid-calf.  (The Encarta Encyclopedia article on “Fashion” seems to regard this event as a major milestone in clothing fashion.  Its timing, following on the heels of that warning from Our Lady, cannot be safely ignored.)  Even married men, including those who have beautiful wives, need to practice “custody of the eyes” to avoid unnecessary temptations.

Fathers and Mothers need to ask their daughters if they really want to encourage a situation in which decent men (the kind who make faithful husbands) will be compelled to avert their eyes whenever they see these girls coming; a situation in which the only men who will notice them favorably will be the kind most likely to cause them lifelong misery.

MyrnaM said:

I often wonder about them, do they lust after each other, they all seem so innocent to me. Do they ever think about God and how does God judge someone who never heard the truth? questions, questions and questions.

There are many kinds of tribes, but none of them are innocent.  You hear about tribes that for no reason just gang up on one member and make them a sacrificial goat, kicking them out and jeering at them and abusing them.  

Maybe they seem innocent because they have such a casual approach to mating, it's not full of the jealousy and vanity, the cruel heartbreak, of the civilized nations.  Or at least we can't see it as well.  Maybe some of them have found the formula the hippies were trying to find, a way to live like pigs and gratify their desires without anyone becoming possessive.  But that makes it worse; not better.  Because it is natural to want to have exclusive physical rights over your mate.

A lot of them are bigamists.  I was reading a papal encyclical of Pius V about how the Church resolved the problem of the Native Americans who had multiple wives when they converted, because the Church respects marriages outside the Church.  ( Answer:  The man stays married to the woman baptized with him, the others gotta go. )

I often wonder about them, do they lust after each other, they all seem so innocent to me.  Do they ever think about God and how does God judge someone who never heard the truth?  questions, questions and questions.  

A tribal woman in the jungles of Brazil of where ever isnt trying to sexy while as a lot of women in the western world today dress as they do to excercise power over men. So there is a qualitive difference. God's judgements are God's judgements and unless he reveals the particular judgements He makes on people we have no way of knowing.

Raoul76's use of the term "mating" to describe procreative acts among primative tribes I think explains why there isn't the same lust and modesty issues that we in the more 'civilized' cultures experience. They do not live with the understanding of the body being a temple of the Holy Spirit.  They live on a very basic level and treat their bodies and each other's as vehicles to achieve their instinctual needs.

I agree 100%, but my husband and I had a conversation today about modesty, and he brought up an interesting question.

What is your opinion, if any?  He brought up the fact that there are savages who live even today, and everyone is naked, men, women and children.  The entire community, they are primitive people living together, working together, nothing really sexy about them.  You may have seen docuмentaries about these people.  These people have no fashions to offend Our Lord.

I often wonder about them, do they lust after each other, they all seem so innocent to me.  Do they ever think about God and how does God judge someone who never heard the truth?  questions, questions and questions.  

1. They do think about God because religion is part of the nature of man.  But they think of Him in an imperfect way in most cases.

2. They are savages - until they come to the Church (and therefore adopt modesty and other Christian practices) their behaviour should not be criticised as going against what is right.  The natural law is their law for the present.  Of course, for the sake of salvation we should be trying to convert them.

This goes to show how terribly wrong things are in the Church - when Pope John Paul II was at a mass in which savages appeared with bare breasts.  Traditionally the Church should have put an end to that kind of display but the new Church is content to see them in their errors.

I think most on here are familiar with Randy Engel, who wrote about sex education and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the Catholic church.

Another very interesting thing that she was involved with was the recording of the "New Order of the Barbarians" tapes.
In these tapes a pediatrician recounts a speech given by the head of planned parenthood for the state of pennsylvannia in 1969. Before the speech, the speaker (Dr. Day) told everyone not to record or take notes, and proceeded to tell the local pediatricians in attendance about the "New World System" that would be gradually implemented. Full summary here http://www.sweetliberty.org/nobarbarians1.htm

In regard to fashion he had this to say.

ENCOURAGING ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖITY. SEX, ANYTHING GOES

    ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity also was to be encouraged. "People will be given permission to be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ."

    That's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. And elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. And, I remember thinking, "how arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!" But that was the terminology that was used.

    In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Recall back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini- skirts were very, very high and revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is exposed that makes clothing sɛҳuąƖly seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive,"

    . . things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?" was one of the statements.

    There was not detail on what was meant by "provocative clothing," but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain anatomic areas. And, this was around the time of the "burn your bra" activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.

    Technology. Earlier he said . . sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already, much, much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don't remember the details, how much of that technology has come to my attention since that time. I don't remember . . I don't remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical information.

Are you guys familiar with ST Thomas Aquinas' Perennial Philosophy?  

I think it suggests that God provides avenues for salvation for those that whom the faith has not reached. In light of what I know about it, Buddhism etc may be avenues to salvation for those who haven't recieved the message. And no, I'm not talking about false ecuмunism here. And of course these other venues would not be an option for us.

Someone said, I read it in one of Fr Fahey's books, that a people who had known God and then rejected him would fall into sin much deeper than those who had never known.

 You can get accostumed to anything. It is called desensitization. It is why some really chaste people are more enthusiastic to marry than 'experienced' ones.
  Desensitization is a method used in psychology to treat hyper###uality. But I read in a book by a persian marriage consultor that it actually has more harms than benefits for men to be desentized, it doesn't make them more chaste.
  It is not catholic but they do it:" have a temptation to do x or y? then do it so frecuently to the point when temptation disappears."

Sounds like something inspired by satan.